Talk:Col. Boyd on Warfare/Delete

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Enormous, rambling, non-wiki and extremely POV which almost reads like tinfoil hattery. - Lucky 6.9 04:14, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This guy needs a new publisher. Preferably, one that doesn't publish his material for free on webpedias that don't allow it. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 05:20, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • As Boyd is deceased, I don't think he posted this article. I think it's evidence of his notability that other people have picked up on his ideas. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Delete now. RickK 05:21, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: If this were to be cleaned, it would need to be "Col. John Boyd," or, if "Boyd on Warfare" is a book (which the article does not make clear) "Col. Boyd on Warfare (Book)," wouldn't it? This is after the POV removal and simplification. A note to the original author asking for conformation to the Wiki rules? Geogre 11:42, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• There appears to be a lot of truth to this article. If we didn't already have an article on Boyd, I'd suggest letting cleanup have a shot at condensing it into a biography. Delete, possibly merge and redirect useful material if anyone volunteers to do the work. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:29, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. John Boyd is credited with a significant influence on modern military strategy. In particular it is said that Boyd had a strong influence on the strategy of the Gulf War via Dick Cheney; a Google search for `Cheney "John Boyd"' turns up many documents stating that. See, for example, [1]. Whether he deserves such credit, I can't tell, but he certainly is notable for it. He is the subject of a book, "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" -- Amazon.com carries it; sales rank 8,690. Col. Boyd on Warfare needs cleanup and maybe a name change but it certainly needs to stay. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:19, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Followup: the article was blanked by its author User:68.1.92.42 and I reverted it [2]. I see a rerun of the "Al-Andalus etymology(ies)" scenario here -- knowledgeable author posts something on an arcane topic; someone else mistakes incomprehension for incomprehensibility; original author gets cheesed off & we lose another worthy contributor. PLEASE IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS GOOD let's not go through this again. I've left a message on User talk:68.1.92.42; maybe the author will see it. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • So you're saying we shouldn't be allowed to put articles by new contributors on VfD? RickK 19:37, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • You see, there's this thing called Google... I have no idea how many times I've seen an article posted on VfD as patent nonsense, tinfoil hattery, or some such, when a very quick Google search would have immediately shown otherwise. I think you put unfair words in Wile's mouth, Rick - it takes very little more effort to be sure than to make a baseless assumption. When in doubt, dogpile. Denni☯ 00:45, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
      • Rick, I didn't say any such thing, of course. -- There are at least three reasonable things to do to get a reading on an article: Google for some terms, ask the author for a clarification, or find some experienced editors and ask them. It wouldn't hurt if we got into the habit of doing some or all of these things. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jxg 02:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Move - probably to the title of the book. Aggressively clean it for POV and readability. Then keep. Rossami 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I did the Google test even though I'd heard of the guy. I wasn't questioning the validity of the subject, only the way it was presented. Good idea to double-check an apparently valid subject in the future. This just seemed hopeless as it is/was. - Lucky 6.9 06:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)